I just finished (well sorta) my first GC, vs AI, normal, 1.05. As the Axis, I totally mangled the SU (not bragging, it was just normal, but hey, my first game). For the hell of it, I took Baku. I also took Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, and I have still not gotten 290 points, Any human SU player would have quit long ago. Point is, 290 VP is ridiculous high for Axis auto victory- seriously. Someone in another thread, or maybe this one, said well if the Axis have an auto victory point, so should the Soviet, and I agree. When a game is at that point, and you know it when you see it, its not fun anymore, the game is over, and should be coded as such. Don't make me "fix" it myself with house rules. I bought the game, you fix it!

I just finished (well sorta) my first GC, vs AI, normal, 1.05. As the Axis, I totally mangled the SU (not bragging, it was just normal, but hey, my first game). For the hell of it, I took Baku. I also took Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, and I have still not gotten 290 points, Any human SU player would have quit long ago. Point is, 290 VP is ridiculous high for Axis auto victory- seriously. Someone in another thread, or maybe this one, said well if the Axis have an auto victory point, so should the Soviet, and I agree. When a game is at that point, and you know it when you see it, its not fun anymore, the game is over, and should be coded as such. Don't make me "fix" it myself with house rules. I bought the game, you fix it!

Depends on whether PBEM or AI? If playing PBEM, I can see how players want a fair game with even a criterium that allowed a chance of success rather than replaying some kind of alternative history with the well-known, and realistically inevitable end -- i.e. be able to win by delaying and performing better than history or such. I guess for PBEM a shorting of the campaign to late June would make most sense, since at least by then the Western Allies would have waited no longer and occupied Berlin themselves (whatever implications for the relationship with Stalin might follow). However, best would indeed be avoiding to fix the Victory to some deadline, but rather to some "holding VP sites for X turns" rule, since that would also avoid "VP raids". Also, assume that the Soviets would by some chance get to Berlin several months earlier than assumed by the victory rules -- then the game ought to be over after a few turns (in which Axis fails to retake it, showing it is on its knees...). If there is an option to continue after the victory screen, any change to victory rules would be fine with me since players can still themselves decide how long to slug it out.

Against AI, I would not ask for any change of V rules. That would simply be unnecessary. And any time spent by the devs on coding new victory rules that could as easily be covered by house-rules will simple be time that could have instead been spent on coding significant improvements to the engine. In that sense, a consensus on house-rules for those that are unhappy with the present V conditions would seem most desirable...

From the poll it seems anyways that there would be no compromise that would make everybody happy, perhaps half of the players at best... Maybe Joel should have differentiated in the poll between PBEM and AI players?

ORIGINAL: AFV I just finished (well sorta) my first GC, vs AI, normal, 1.05. As the Axis, I totally mangled the SU (not bragging, it was just normal, but hey, my first game). For the hell of it, I took Baku. I also took Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, and I have still not gotten 290 points, Any human SU player would have quit long ago. Point is, 290 VP is ridiculous high for Axis auto victory- seriously. Someone in another thread, or maybe this one, said well if the Axis have an auto victory point, so should the Soviet, and I agree. When a game is at that point, and you know it when you see it, its not fun anymore, the game is over, and should be coded as such. Don't make me "fix" it myself with house rules. I bought the game, you fix it!

This is pretty much how I feel as well. Saying that those 290 VPs are needed because the Soviets would never have surrendered is a political wrinkle that we as players have already been freed from everywhere else. From a purely military POV, holding everything from Leningrad down to Baku would mean that Operation Barbarossa has been a success and then some.

After two PBEMs as Germans way back in the beginning, I switched to playing Russian as it was more of a challenge. If the Russian survived the first year in reasonable shape, things became tediously easy for the Russians but 1941 was a nail biter against all but the most inexperienced opponent.

I would have expected 1941 to have become slightly easier and late war substantially more difficult for Russia after so many patches, but as of mid August 1941 in patch 1.06, Russia now looks like unplayable against a skilled opponent.

I'm playing an old opponent again. Last time, I took Berlin in late 1943. This time, by turn 8, that is mid August, he's approaching Leningrad, Moscow and Tula, has taken Kharkov and for the most part is under 40 MP from supply net. Because the Russsians are so slow, particularly moving into enemy hexes, and weak, he is able to skeleton man his extended flanks and concentrate phenomenal force at a few key points.

The NKVD are all but gone, even forts stuffed with sappers and RR diggers seem to drink tea instead of building defences. I'm so far ok with arms evacuation but 20 vehicle and all Kharkov's T34s were lost. I could so far only evacuate three HI, the rest, too bad. But now I have just encountered for the first time the worst rule I have yet witnessed in WitE. All the hexes inside a pocket not adjacent to my combat units turned to Axis control. A picture is a thousand words so-

In case anyone thinks he's been driving right down behind my lines, he hasn't.

The rule states that this loss of ground simulates the contraction of units on being pocketed. What if they want to get out of the pocket? They have to pay to move through enemy hexes the enemy could not possibly have converted. It makes a mockery of the logistical brake supposedly applied to the Axis in 1941.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

Mehring, you gotta picket the whole Axis line, man, and make them think twice about those narrow penetrations. ZOC the whole thing, one unit every 3 hexes, keep in contact with the enemy at all times. Yes it's expensive and you'll lose the units more often than not, but there it is. If they ignore your picket line you can cause them a ton of headaches.

Mehring, you gotta picket the whole Axis line, man, and make them think twice about those narrow penetrations. ZOC the whole thing, one unit every 3 hexes, keep in contact with the enemy at all times. Yes it's expensive and you'll lose the units more often than not, but there it is. If they ignore your picket line you can cause them a ton of headaches.

I don't see it in 1.06 Flavius. Sure, a picket would have slowed the southward drive a bit, a division or two actually did, but that 40+ MP division he's saved for the final drive will usually get through, just like the turn before, it got through my main line and countless pickets in front of Kharkov, as well as the garrison, to take the city. That's always been the case, and it's good play. But I'm highlighting a shift in play balance which makes the Russians phenomenally weak in 1941 in stead of making them stronger, which when playing German, I thought they needed.

The Russians can barely move and attack and they can barely move through enemy controlled ground, let alone through ZOC. You need 5 or 6 Russian divisions to hit one German regiment, and that's starting to look like an army, not a picket. So unless the Axis railnet is within a hex or two of the front, what headaches can the Russians cause these days? A smart Axis player will ignore a Russian picket and be thankful for the handfull less divisions between him and the Russian industry.

The summer 1941 game looks to me like having moved in the wrong direction and this pocket hex loss rule is absurd.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

The game has changed. Previously, it took very little effort/dkill to get a decisive victory as the Russian. Now it is more evenly matched, and I believe you are seeing that.

I don't think the summer of 41 has moved in the wrong direction, however I was not aware of the hex flip rule and not really sure I am on board with that.

FYI, I will put $10 on Flavio to win his current game, because I do not believe it is unbalanced in the Axis favor. It will be good to see how new AARs play out, and we will have confirmation of the current balance.

Admittedly I'm playing a GC with random weather and just got crushingly generous gift: mud in South and Central Soviet on turn 5.

I always play random weather, but the gods haven't smiled on me yet. I trust your opponent is grade 1 material, but let's see how it goes. meantime my objections stand.

Sorry, but I don't think they do. Your screenshots show a complete failure on your part to occupy a wide swath from the Pripyet Marshes, to the eastern borders of the Ukraine, and from Gomel to Kiev. Just what do you think should have the precedence for control? The fact that the Axis have taken advantage of your poor dispositions to rampage at will through your rear and cut off your lines of communications to this huge, unprotected area, or the little red flags that your men left planted on the roadsides in your haste to evacuate?

Admittedly I'm playing a GC with random weather and just got crushingly generous gift: mud in South and Central Soviet on turn 5.

I always play random weather, but the gods haven't smiled on me yet. I trust your opponent is grade 1 material, but let's see how it goes. meantime my objections stand.

Sorry, but I don't think they do. Your screenshots show a complete failure on your part to occupy a wide swath from the Pripyet Marshes, to the eastern borders of the Ukraine, and from Gomel to Kiev. Just what do you think should have the precedence for control? The fact that the Axis have taken advantage of your poor dispositions to rampage at will through your rear and cut off your lines of communications to this huge, unprotected area, or the little red flags that your men left planted on the roadsides in your haste to evacuate?

What is control and what is the meaning of converting hexes to your own control? Owning territory is having an area secured. Securing an area takes time and petrol and wares down vehicles and requires boots on the ground.

What appears to you to be my opponent rampaging at will in my rear area is really a couple of divisions making a long distance raid. That is precisely my point, and these units are nowhere near most of the territory they have have captured but my ground combat units are near it, considerably more near it and in greater quantity than the raiders.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

This raiding strategy can be managed. But you have to picket the Axis line and keep the landsers separated from the panzers. Panzers alone operating without support in deep and narrow penetrations are at the precipice of a disaster if you deal with them correctly. The key (in 1941 at least) is to always, always maintain contact with the Axis along the entire line. Use expendable units for this, low morale divisions, NKVD, paras, etc. One unit per every three hexes to minimize your liability. This will seriously extend the Axis line and complicate his logistics and if he slips up, it is you who will get in his rear.

It also provides a screen for the bulk of your army.

Check out the game I did with Pelton a while back for an example. He eventually got wise to the tactic and cleaned up the picket line, but it did the job.

I was looking for an AAR by you but couldn't find one, it must be very old or under someone else's name? I suspect it's old as you refer to NKVD units, most of which are now disbanded in my game. The line is too long to maintain contact. I lost so many units from the T1 encirclements I've been struggling to build lines where I need to defend. I've lost 1.3 milion men, mostly from T1 yet I don't have any expendable units, that's why the line was so thin or absent. This has never been so acute as in 1.06. What are your pickets supposed to accomplish, anyway?

Russian movement capability through enemy hexes seems to have been curbed since the early days, too, maybe a function of reduced experience. Ask anyone who's played me before, I'm a very aggressive defender, but this game I just don't have the units and the new combat loss ratios (6 germans dead, 1500 Russians) don't help either. In previous games you could easily surround armoured spearheads and often kill the units later. Done it, I was good at it, and I had it done to me too from time to time, but the game's different.

Let's see if you manage to get into the Germans rear in your game. I doubt it very much if they're any good.

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

Ahhhhhhhhh. Trust me, this guy I'm playing doesn't suffer from headaches. A very cool customer, he just won't be distracted by little side shows. He didn't last game we played either. He's improved and the 1941 game's changed to help him.

I tell you what, Flavius, when this one's over, how about we test our respective theories against eachother, you Russian, me Axis?

_____________________________

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” ¯ Thomas Jefferson

Admittedly I'm playing a GC with random weather and just got crushingly generous gift: mud in South and Central Soviet on turn 5.

I always play random weather, but the gods haven't smiled on me yet. I trust your opponent is grade 1 material, but let's see how it goes. meantime my objections stand.

Sorry, but I don't think they do. Your screenshots show a complete failure on your part to occupy a wide swath from the Pripyet Marshes, to the eastern borders of the Ukraine, and from Gomel to Kiev. Just what do you think should have the precedence for control? The fact that the Axis have taken advantage of your poor dispositions to rampage at will through your rear and cut off your lines of communications to this huge, unprotected area, or the little red flags that your men left planted on the roadsides in your haste to evacuate?

What is control and what is the meaning of converting hexes to your own control? Owning territory is having an area secured. Securing an area takes time and petrol and wares down vehicles and requires boots on the ground.

What appears to you to be my opponent rampaging at will in my rear area is really a couple of divisions making a long distance raid. That is precisely my point, and these units are nowhere near most of the territory they have have captured but my ground combat units are near it, considerably more near it and in greater quantity than the raiders.

If one really comes down to it the concept of "control" outside of the ZOC of a unit doesn't make that much sense. Whether you are happily bumbling along a field track or not has nothing to do whether that field track is behind an imaginary line or not and everything to do with how close the nearest BG is. How about increasing the ZOC cost while reducing the "control" cost...